There are certain specific functions of government that are absolutely necessary in order to secure, protect and defend the rights of the individual citizens - and public art most certainly does NOT rise to that level. A government's power and its funding should be limited ONLY to those specific functions necessary to protect individual rights. The ONLY matters that are properly subject to a democratic vote in a free society are issues of HOW those functions are best executed and WHO should fill the necessary government offices as our elected representatives. In a free society, a democratic vote is NOT a license for the majority to impose its will and worldview upon the minority. And I don't care how "worthy" the objective one is attempting to obtain through compulsion allegedly is. It doesn't matter. The ends do NOT justify the means.

I agree with you that there are specific functions of government that are absolutely necessary, though there are many more aspects of government that - while not absolutely necessary - are determined by the community to be important to protect and enrich the public health, safety, and welfare. These elements are captured through public participation in the creation (and updating) of the community's comprehensive plan.

Fort Worth's comprehensive plan is revised and adopted annually, to take in new feedback and revise plans to steer the community toward its vision. The city's vision statement is:

QUOTE

By the year 2020, Fort Worth will be commonly recognized as the most livable city in Texas. Residents will be able to enjoy Fort Worth’s friendly atmosphere and the opportunities that are associated with a growing economy and diverse community. Fort Worth’s public schools will produce well-rounded citizens and a skilled workforce to fill high-paying jobs in local businesses. Fort Worth’s environmental quality will also be superior, meeting the highest national standards.

To further quote the comprehensive plan (with emphasis added):

QUOTE

During the 2000 Comprehensive Plan sector workshops held throughout Fort Worth in 1998, several values were identified that refine the City’s vision. These values are preserved as part of the 2009 Plan: Preservation of western heritage, a friendly small town atmosphere, quality and ethnic diversity of cultural life, the arts, neighborhood vitality, preservation of historic buildings and districts, efficiency and equity in delivery of quality public services, educational and economic opportunity, aviation history and technology, can-do attitude, promotion of free enterprise, protection of property rights, mobility, children and youth, conservation of natural resources, and inclusiveness and cooperation: “The Fort Worth Way.”

The authority for Fort Worth and other Texas cities is granted by the Texas Local Government Code (Chapter 213), which states:

QUOTE

The powers granted under this chapter are for the purpose of promoting sound development of municipalities and promoting public health, safety, and welfare.

The constitutionality of this and other state planning enabling laws have been challenged and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

So, in summary, when values such as "cultural life" and "the arts" have been incorporated by the public into the city's comprehensive plan, a capital improvement project such as public art is considered as salient as any sidewalk, stoplight, or park bench.

I agree with you that there are specific functions of government that are absolutely necessary, though there are many more aspects of government that - while not absolutely necessary - are determined by the community to be important to protect and enrich the public health, safety, and welfare. These elements are captured through public participation in the creation (and updating) of the community's comprehensive plan.

The problem with language such as "enrich the public health, safety and welfare" is that it can be and HAS BEEN interpreted pretty much any way that one wishes to to justify darned near ANYTHING.

So a bunch of Food Fascists get in power and decide that in order to "enrich the public health" they get to impose their dietary preferences on the rest of society. So a bunch of bigots gather up a majority and say that same-sex couples are moral degenerates whose private lifestyles need to be outlawed in the name of "enriching the public health, safety and welfare."

And it is a matter of historical record that almost identical language was also used by mass murderers such as Hitler and Stalin in order to justify their atrocities.

Where does it end and where do you draw a line?

The premise of what you say above is based on collectivism - the notion that an individual's life is not his own but, rather, is subordinated to and subservient to some sort of "higher good" be it the will of the majority or the whim of a dictator or Ayatollah. It is on such a premise that every tyranny known to man has been based.

A free society is one that is based on the rights of the individual - and the ONLY valid function of government in a free society is to secure, protect and defend those rights. To the degree that a government goes beyond those functions, it is moving in the direction of tyranny on the collectivist premise that there are goals that are "higher" and supersede the rights of the individual and, therefore, the ends justify the means.

In order for a free society to exist, there are certain functions which ONLY government can provide - police, courts and the military. On a local level there are certain functions which ONLY government can provide. For example, in order for property rights to exit in land, there needs to exist public rights of way by which people can access their own property without trespassing on someone else's. Those public rights of way usually exist in the form of roads. For roads to exist they need to be maintained. And roads need things such as sidewalks, stop lights, street signs, bridges, street lights, etc. Many would argue that there are certain absolutely necessary services such as drainage systems, sanitary sewers, that ONLY government can provide - and, in an urban setting, I really don't take issue with that. Others include services such as fire protection and water supplies in that category too.

Public art does not even begin to approach such a category.

QUOTE

a capital improvement project such as public art is considered as salient as any sidewalk, stoplight, or park bench.

I don't have a problem with artistic features that are incidental to necessary projects such as sidewalks and road construction. If you notice the new construction on I-30 through Arlington, there are, in the embankments, some murals in the concrete which appear to pay tribute to the city's history - for example, one features an auto worker presumably at Arlington's GM plant. That doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I think it is kind of neat so long as the cost is not absolutely outrageous. If you are going to build a bridge or an embankment, why not make it look attractive? Obviously it is necessary for street lighting to be put in place along Lancaster. Again, I have no problem if a little bit more money is spent in order for the street lights to be attractive ones and not ugly ones and let the politicians in charge face the consequences at the next election if it is too much. And they HAVE put attractive streetlights along Lancaster - and I am perfectly cool with that despite the fact that I am sure cheaper ones could have been used instead. But the colored lights on Lancaster do not provide any function necessary for public safety or the flow of traffic down that thoroughfare. I do not have any problem at all with the city making the space in the median available for such art if civic minded people step forward and voluntarily donate it. And I do know that the cost of the sculptures is but a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. But that still doesn't matter. People should not be forced by their government to pay for anything beyond what is absolutely necessary for the government to execute its strictly limited legitimate functions as a matter of principle.

I would say that a society that is forbidden by elites from setting its own priorities with regards to taxation and spending is not, in fact, a free society. It certainly is not a society where the government reflects the will of the governed.

Speaking of collectivism as an objective evil is just a way of cutting off the argument. Collectivism is used in a number of ways that free market conservatives like: military spending, road building, police. But there is a nontrivial minority who would like to see spending slashed in all three of those areas. That there is other spending that liberals like (in support of the arts, for example) and conservatives don't is just part of the give-and-take of democracy.

Frankly, D, I find the notion of Food Fascists pretty funny. I don't think there's a democracy on Earth that would tolerate that kind of nonsense for very long.

Speaking of collectivism as an objective evil is just a way of cutting off the argument.

I am afraid that I do not understand what you mean by that so it is difficult for me to respond to it.

Regarding collectivism - basically there are two alternatives: Either an individual human being owns his own life and gets to choose how he lives it and to whom, if anyone, the fruits of his efforts are to be given - or his life and his ability to keep or dispose of what he earns as he sees fit is subordinated to and may be sacrificed in the name of some allegedly "higher" purpose such as "the public interest" "the common good" or "national greatness" or "glory to god" or a mere "because I say so" uttered by the dictator in charge.

That is the basic alternative and there really is no middle ground. The only thing that differs between collectivists is the issue of for whom and to what degree the individual should be forced to sacrifice.

QUOTE

Collectivism is used in a number of ways that free market conservatives like: military spending, road building, police.

That could very well be. A lot of "conservatives" have a very limited understanding of free markets and give it little more than lip service. And a great many "conservatives" are VERY collectivistic when it comes to wishing to impose on others their views on personal, private morality.

But there is nothing inherently or necessarily collectivist about the government operating a police force or a military. Those functions, along with a court system, are the REASON why governments properly exist in the first place. A proper government outlaws the initiation of force or fraud because it is by those means and ONLY by those means that individual rights are violated. A police force is necessary to protect individual rights from being violated by criminals. A military is necessary in order to defend individual rights from foreign invaders.

It is very true that a police force and a military in the hands of a Hitler or a Stalin can be used for dastardly collectivist ends. But that is not a damnation of the institutions themselves. Rather it is a huge reason for making darned sure that such institutions remain subordinated to the protection of individual rights and never fall into the hands of would-be authoritarians.

QUOTE

But there is a nontrivial minority who would like to see spending slashed in all three of those areas.

That is very true. And the existence of such disagreements is all the more reason that the scope of government be limited strictly to those functions which are vital and necessary to protecting individual rights - i.e., protecting people from the initiation of force and fraud. Debates over how much money ought to be spent on the arts, on education, etc. exist ONLY under a collectivist system where government is involved in funding them. In a fully free society such things are NEVER an issue because the answer is: however much people WANT to spend on such things.

QUOTE

Frankly, D, I find the notion of Food Fascists pretty funny. I don't think there's a democracy on Earth that would tolerate that kind of nonsense for very long.

Well, they are tolerating it in Los Angeles where fast food restaurants have been outlawed in entire sections of town on the premise that the people (mostly racial minorities) who live in those areas are too childlike to be allowed to make their own dietary choices. And there are serious proposals being floated that would impose a heavy tax on corn syrup and sugar drinks not as a means of raising revenue for legitimate government services but rather because certain people do not approve of such products. And watch out if we ever get socialized medicine. If the taxpayers are going to be on the financial hook for the consequences of people's poor dietary choices, I guarantee you that it is only a matter of time before our range of dietary options will be DICTATED to us.

Can't say that I am all that fond of taxpayer dollars being used to pay for them - it would be much better if such things were funded by some sort of local civic organization supported on an entirely voluntary basis. But I do think the lights are kind of cool. I think that people are starting to get the right idea that downtowns at night need LIGHTS -- LOTS of them. That is what makes them look ALIVE. I like how they have lit up that parking garage near the Omni - which is also a VERY nice parking garage and proves that such garages do not HAVE to be eyesores. Now if they could just light up the top floors of The Fair/Commerce Building. And it would be nice if the new Omni had some sort of night time lighting scheme as well.

Dismuke, are you aware that the new Municipal Parking Garage had Public Art funds applied to that project? You commented that you like the lights and the overall design of the structure. The Public Arts portion of the project increased the cost of the building by a fairly significant number. If there wasn't any Public Art funding included in that project, we would have a standard pre-cast concrete parking garage box without ornamentation, color, lighting, or the sounds. I'm sure that you would probably comment that the garage was ugly and mundane if it had been built under a "no frills" approach because it would look just like any other multi-story parking garage.

Here are some numbers about the budget of the garage as taken from a Dallas Morning News article:

Dismuke, are you aware that the new Municipal Parking Garage had Public Art funds applied to that project? You commented that you like the lights and the overall design of the structure.

No, I was not aware of that. But I DO like the lights and think the overall design of the structure is very nice - one of the nicest modern parking garages I have ever seen.

QUOTE

The Public Arts portion of the project increased the cost of the building by a fairly significant number. If there wasn't any Public Art funding included in that project, we would have a standard pre-cast concrete parking garage box without ornamentation, color, lighting, or the sounds. I'm sure that you would probably comment that the garage was ugly and mundane if it had been built under a "no frills" approach because it would look just like any other multi-story parking garage.

You are probably correct there on all accounts. But I am very consistent in my approach. Just because I happen to really like the end product that the money was spent on doesn't make it right.

To use another example, I also enjoy occasionally attending the ballet and the opera and am very grateful for and value the fact that we have top quality professional companies in the area that put on such performances. But on the other hand, I do not think it is right to force people who have zero interest in either to subsidize my taste in entertainment. If that means that they end up going away - well, I will be very sad. But that is MY problem, not the problem of the person who prefers to spend his money on Cowboy's tickets and rock concerts. There are a number of things I have to do without in this world because not enough other people are interested in them or willing to pay for them in order to make them viable - and, again, that is my problem, not everybody else's.

In my RSS feed reader, this evening, I came upon this news, and thought I would share:

QUOTE

Public art hearing planned

The Fort Worth Art Commission invites Fort Worth residents to a presentation and public hearing on the draft public art plan for the 2008 CIP for the Fort Worth Public Art program. The hearing will be at 5:30 p.m. Nov. 9 at the Fort Worth Community Arts Center’s Scott Theater, 1300 Gendy St. To view the proposed project list, visit www.fwpublicart.org or call 817-298-3027.

I like the statutes of JFK at the memorial, of the tall man at Burnett Park, the firefighter at the central fire station, and of the park-bench seated Mark Twain at Forest Park. I like the lighted dome above the new museum of science and history. I would care more for the landscape lighting along Lancaster if the buildings along Lancaster were rehabilitated (old parking lots, the dilapidated T&P warehouse, overall a dismal looking corridor). Reminds me of Christmas tree lighting that improves the night-time appearance of a neighborhood hovel.

1.67 Million... Does anyone know what some other Fort Worth public arts have costed around that number? Seems massive. Most of the other listed projects are 100-200 thousand. I can't wait to here more about this...

I wish they'd put lights in all the tunnels. Last time I walked through Jennings there were homeless people sleeping on the sidewalk and you'd nearly trip over them.

I don't know about this "art" project... Stainless steel letters mounted on re-used concrete traffic barriers, for half-a-million-dollars?! I wonder what other artistic uses this money could have been put to...

Having seen the artist's preliminary design, I think and agree that it will become an overnight icon.

As for the placement of the sign, I believe the ideal location of the sign would between Oakland and Beach, either north or south of I-30. It is hard to imagine a better approach to the city then the one from Broadcast Hill.

To Councilman Zimmer and as to Fort Worth's claim of being "Where the West begins", the gateway to the city would, it seems logically, be somewhere at its eastern parameter.

I'll say this: I think it's good the east side is getting some money thrown its way. Zimmerman said this is unsustainable. How many projects has his side of town gotten, compared to the east side? I'm sorry, the east side never gets the same love the west side gets.

"In the last several months, however, the Federal Highway Administration revoked its approval, saying the sign is too large and would be in the possible path of a high-speed rail line that may be built between downtown Fort Worth and downtown Dallas, with a stop in Arlington."

Sorry if this looks like my glass half empty side lashing out, but what's next? Banning air traffic over the highway on the off chance that GM starts selling flying cars next week?

I've seen the use of barriers and steel letters somewhere else. I cannot remember where except it was out west in a dry industrial city between here and Cali coast. I keep thinking it was Oildale ,Cali. but I could be wrong. Thought at the time it was a bad attempt at "Industrial Chic." Agree with all above ^^^^^ -Kill it.

I like the idea of the steel letters spelling out the city's name, but the execution they're going for is terrible. Putting it on the side of a freeway is not going to make it iconic like the Hollywood sign.

In my opinion this is more of an industrial design than an art piece. Directing Public Art funds to projects like signs, park benches, trash cans, bike racks, just seems like a way to use art money for what used to be considered infrastructure.

I don't know about this "art" project... Stainless steel letters mounted on re-used concrete traffic barriers, for half-a-million-dollars?! I wonder what other artistic uses this money could have been put to...Doesn't the council have some sort of arts advisory council (made up of people who are knowledgable in some way about art) advising them on how to spend arts money?

Looks horrible using concrete median barriers. I suspect it will get graffiti before the week is out once installed.

IMO neon would be a massive improvement!

I feel comfortable disagreeing with the consensus opinion being express and for the reasons that this piece of public art is bad.

I think one should give thought to past and present metallic pieces of public art in the City. At one time, "The Eagle" by Calder was located at Throckmorton and Fourth Streets. Today, the City has "Vortex" at the Modern Museum of Art; "Tabachin Ribbon" at the Municipal Courts Plaza; "Wind" at the Henderson@White Settlement Roads Roundabout at Panther Island; the "Tornado" at University/Bailey/7th Streets; and "Man with Briefcase" at Burnett Park.

It is informative to recall the reaction to Man with Briefcase. The sculpture was created in 2002. It's fifty feet tall, twenty-two feet wide, and one foot thick. It weighs 24,000 pounds. Fort Worth Weekly recalls "that back when he was under construction, many people thought the Man was dumb or ought to have a cowboy hat instead of a fedora. Others think he helps bring Fort Worth into the 21st century. Either way, he makes people talk and think".

There is at least one, among the majority expressing a dislike for this piece of art, who is favorable to it being metallic; and also with whom I agree.

As for the location of the sign of public art, I earlier in this thread express a preference for the sign to be located along the east approach of I30 between Oakland and Beach Streets to take advantage of one of the top vistas of the skyline. Another preference, indeed there ought to be a second sign, is along the west approach of I30 @ Linkcrest Drive. Each and either of these locations provide the best views of the skyline against a big sky. If located at these sites, the metallic signs would be iconic and would last for ages.

Isn't the purpose of the sign to serve as some sort of a "welcome mat" to the City. Placing a sign in Trinity Park would be like placing a welcome mat inside of your family room.

The number of traffic eyeballs are exponentially greater along the interstate than they are along a city street.

Let's be real... why even have a "welcome mat" art piece in the first place? That seems like something that only small towns do.

I'm not against this idea to have "FORT WORTH" spelled out in steel lettering and whatnot, but I'd rather it be part of the core and in a place where people can look/admire it instead of blowing through it at (at least) 85 mph.

I see the steel letters working better as an iconic photo op with the skyline in the background than as a welcome sign on the side of the freeway with a McDonald's and a Walmart behind them. That's why I agreed with Jeriat's suggestion of placing them along the river.

I think iconic welcome signs along I-30 at Oakland and Linkcrest are a great idea, even if it is the letters. I just really dislike the placement on 121.

Isn't the purpose of the sign to serve as some sort of a "welcome mat" to the City. Placing a sign in Trinity Park would be like placing a welcome mat inside of your family room...
The number of traffic eyeballs are exponentially greater along the interstate than they are along a city street.

(1) Let's be real... why even have a "welcome mat" art piece in the first place? That seems like something that only small towns do.

(2) I'm not against this idea to have "FORT WORTH" spelled out in steel lettering and whatnot, but I'd rather it be part of the core and in a place where people can look/admire it instead of blowing through it at (at least) 85 mph.

(1) State "Welcome Mats" in the form of signs are posted along highways into and that cross state lines. We have all seen these, I assume? It makes little sense for a Texas Welcome Mat to be posted in Fort Worth, aside for at points of entry such as airports and train stations.

(2) I don't doubt that drivers are going at high rates of speed, some at 85mph or greater; however, it would be rather unlikely that even at freeway speeds, a driver and passenger(s) would not be able to read Fort Worth spelled out in large lettering.

For the record, I believe that Airport Freeway (SH121) is possibly the route least used by cross country/state traffic through the City; and therefore it is a bad choice for locating a sign.

My question remains; Is it Art? Should Public art money be used for what is basically a sign? The original artist dropped out of the project, so they got a new artist, but the sign remained the same... doesn't that indicate that the idea pre-existed the artist? If they already had the idea, why did they need an artist? Why not a sign company? They need an artist so they can call it "Art" and access the public art funds.

There isn't a reason why it can not be both a sign and a piece of art simultaneously. When you take a look at the signs that have endured over time, you will realize that they have also become a part of the fabric of the City; and you would all of sudden missed one of them if it went away. That is how art is created and how signs become art.

I still miss the smoke stack at the Texas Electric Plant that was demolished by TCCC.

My question remains; Is it Art? Should Public art money be used for what is basically a sign? The original artist dropped out of the project, so they got a new artist, but the sign remained the same... doesn't that indicate that the idea pre-existed the artist? If they already had the idea, why did they need an artist? Why not a sign company? They need an artist so they can call it "Art" and access the public art funds.

My question remains; Is it Art? Should Public art money be used for what is basically a sign? The original artist dropped out of the project, so they got a new artist, but the sign remained the same... doesn't that indicate that the idea pre-existed the artist? If they already had the idea, why did they need an artist? Why not a sign company? They need an artist so they can call it "Art" and access the public art funds.

Public art is important and there should be more of it, but this sign seems more booster club than art center.... I like the welcome sign laid-out on the highway for commuters and folks returning home, but if we're talking art, I'd rather see something by Vernon Fisher taking up the entire side of a big building.... who's in charge of decorating Dickie's? Now that would be sight to see!

Wait, wait - they didn't get approval from the Federal Highway Administration or TxDOT to put the mass of concrete and steel on the side of the highway before spending money on it? Well isn't that just typical.

And the thought that it would be as iconic as the Hollywood sign is laughable.

The idea of having something iconic and memorable on the highways coming into Fort Worth isn't a bad idea. Set the tone, so to speak. Let 'em know they've arrived. And both I-30 coming in from our fat ugly sister to the east or 121 coming in from our half of the airport would be good places to start. The one on I-30 should also shout out a big "welcome home, commuters!"

It seems to me, though, that something like this would have been a great opportunity to get more people involved in the brainstorming. Maybe the public. Might've come up with something more interesting. Maybe this would have been fine - it's hard to tell. It sort of looks like it was created by an artist with little more than MS-Paint available to him. But I think with a larger public discussion we might have been able to generate some better concepts.

And what was that in the article about high-speed rail between Fort Worth and Dallas with a stop in Arlington?

Oh, hipolyte: that one will never work. Where are you going to find a bovine large enough for that vamp? It certainly couldn't be wholecut.

....(1) .And the thought that it would be as iconic as the Hollywood sign is laughable.....The idea of having something iconic and memorable on the highways coming into Fort Worth isn't a bad idea.....(2) It seems to me, though, that something like this would have been a great opportunity to get more people involved in the brainstorming. Maybe the public. Might've come up with something more interesting. Maybe this would have been fine - it's hard to tell. It sort of looks like it was created by an artist with little more than MS-Paint available to him. But I think with a larger public discussion we might have been able to generate some better concepts.

#1 - Icons sneak up on you; and I doubt if the original work of "art" can know whether it will achieve iconic status. IMO, iconic requires something to have a minimal set of variables "longevity" and an "identity".

You would have to say that the City already has one iconic sign. I give you our iconic sign -